The House Republican leadership plans to introduce rule changes that would make it harder for Congress to pass tax increases or close tax loopholes.
John Boehner
Republicans, who are taking over the majority in the House on Wednesday, have proposed a series of rule changes that they plan to make. They include changes in the so-called “pay-as-you-go,” or “pay-go,” rules that the Democratic leadership had put in place in the previous Congress. That rule required that all new spending or tax cuts be paid for with corresponding tax increases, the closing of tax loopholes, or spending cuts.
The Republican majority instead plans to institute a “cut-as-you-go,” or “cut-go,” rule that says any new mandatory spending must be offset with spending cuts, not tax hikes, according to a blog post by spokesman Don Seymour on the Web site of incoming House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
“The new rules will reflect a new culture of fiscal discipline in Congress; no longer will the system be rigged in favor of ever-more (and sometimes automatic) spending hikes,” wrote Seymour.
He noted that the new rules would require legislation to show a long-term budget impact — four decades beyond current rules — to “prevent lawmakers from using accounting gimmicks and sleight of hand to hide the true cost of big government proposals.”
The new rule states that if mandatory spending is increased, spending must be cut by an equal or greater amount elsewhere. Tax increases could not be used to pay for new mandatory spending.
However, the new “cut-go” rule would not apply to House Republicans’ attempt to repeal the health care reform law, according to The New York Times. They plan to introduce a bill to repeal health care reform before President Obama’s State of the Union address later this month. Even though the health care reform law is projected to reduce the federal budget deficit by $140 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Republicans argue that it would add to long-term federal spending by increasing taxes, expanding Medicaid eligibility and subsidizing private insurance.
Other new rules would require lawmakers to cite the Constitutional authority for any piece of legislation. The new session of Congress will begin with a reading of the Constitution, the first time this has occurred in the 221-year history of Congress, according to the Washington Post.
“Legislators will now be required to outline, in the text of a bill, where in the Constitution the federal government is delegated the authority to carry out a given law,” Seymour wrote. “As Boehner said last fall, ‘If we cannot do this much — we should put down the pen and stop right there.’”
New rules would also require all bills to be posted online for public viewing at least three days before a vote. “The days of quickly ramming massive bills through Congress — such as the 'stimulus' that didn’t work and the job-killing national energy tax — are over,” wrote Seymour. “Under the new rules, the House will post all bills online at least three calendar days before a vote, giving lawmakers, the public, and the media a chance to read each proposal and understand its impact. The Sunlight Foundation called the new rule ‘a huge victory for the ReadtheBill movement, and for transparency in the way the House considers legislation.’"
Other new rules call for webcasting committee hearings, twice-annual reports to ensure committees are “engaged in proper legislative and oversight activities,” according to Seymour, posting committee votes online within 48 hours, and more.
Under new House rules, each appropriations bill would be required to have a “spending reduction account.” An amendment to strike money from a portion of a spending bill could be transferred to the account to reduce the actual amount of money appropriated. Currently, amendments to strike spending from a bill reduce the amount allocated to that program or account, but do not lower the overall spending level for the bill. The rule change would also prevent a member from spending savings from a previously adopted amendment to strike spending.
Highway funding, with some exceptions, would now be treated as other general spending and therefore be subject to any member attempt to reduce the spending. Currently, it is against House rules to strike spending for highway or mass transit programs. The rule change would provide an exemption to protect the Highway Trust Fund, ensuring all those revenues continue to go toward highway projects. Other funding sources are not protected in the same way.
Senate Democrats also plan to propose rule changes of their own on the first day of Congress, including rules that would make it harder for senators to filibuster bills and put secret holds on bills and White House nominees. The rule changes in both chambers would be subject to a vote before they could take effect.
12 Comments
Almost anything goes. Transparency and accountability exist only in the for-profit world. World Com and Enron cost the public a few billion and everyone went crazy (read..Sarbanes Oxley), including FASB. Corruption in the Federal and State gov't units cost the public that much on a weekly basis. Think about how much money the public will have to pay for the shenanigans of the two pseudo-public agencies, Fannie & Freddie (the toxic twins). Yet no one in our profession, the "public watchdog" is screaming for governmental accounting reforms. Let's grow some folks. Have our rule making bodies drank the same kool aid as Universities, NEA and the SEIU?
Posted by: JediCPA | January 9, 2011 7:30 PM
Report this Comment
Look, EVERYTHING in Washington is political. What is the point of trying to make sense of decisions in terms of professional accounting? It's been that way forever and it's not going to change any day soon! If the wind changed tomorrow for the majority leaders, you bet your bottom dollar they would completely change the agenda. This isn't really about fiscal responsibility any more than it is an issue for the average citizen. It's our jobs as professionals to keep up with all the changes they implement...not to get involved in the politics of the decision. Accountants are not politicians. That said, a number of seats were taken by accountants in November...
Posted by: jklarich | January 6, 2011 10:52 AM
Report this Comment
I think we can agree that ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies suitable only for politicians pandering to fools whose vote counts just as much as anyone else.
Am I the only one who is incensed by the hypocrisy shown so early on by the new House leaders? It's just that available evidence shows convincingly that the health care reforms instituted last year are on track to make major debt reductions. So, of course, to kill it off they have to make an exception. One last drink before going sober? One last crime before going straight? They've failed every time they were in power before, and they will fail again because they want to make clocks run backward to a time when everything was perfect. When was that, and perfect for who?
The Republican goal is not fiscal responsibility, but political glory and personal financial success. Labeling anyone who cares about the personal well-being of Americans as a Liberal and summarily dismissing them on that basis alone serves no good.
Posted by: bill94566 | January 5, 2011 1:30 PM
Report this Comment
Pitbull is not addressing ANY point in this article, simply instilling prejudice against anyone who would possibly support HCR's. Implying that a CPA who does support this legislation would perform an illegal act by preparing false tax returns is absurd at best, and leans us toward a McCarthy-like state at worst.
Did Pitbull not read the polling results about which media news source is dishing out the most false information? I didn't see MSNBC, DailyKOS or Huffington Post high on the list, but Pitbull's talking points are right out of Fox News, which won high honors on that poll. How about addressing the fiscal benefits of this plan for small business owners interested in supplying their employees with affordable healthcare? How about the SAVINGS, not cuts to Medicare that will come out of this plan? How about the REDUCTION IN OUR FEDERAL DEFICITS and STATE DEFICITS as well as more people will be covered by insurance instead of being on the federal or state dole?
This article is really not about HCR's but the Republican obstruction of them and the dissipation of misinformation about them. It is about Republican's who talk out of both sides of their mouths by introducing these blatantly hypocritical changes in rules. They are exempting themselves from their own rule changes by failing to recognize the reduction in deficits brought on by HCR's and the continuation of tax cuts to the already wealthy that have, in part, contributed to those same deficits.
Placing Constitutional references with each piece of legislation is beyond the pale of anyone's understanding of our government. The Constitution was not intended to be a reference guide for everything we need accomplished today. Our SCOTUS would be put out of business and replaced by Michele Bachmann's intellectual contributions that have not proven to be so insightful in the past.
Obstruction needs to be replaced by governing and we are ALL watching.
Posted by: NiteOwlett | January 5, 2011 11:12 AM
Report this Comment
I was under the impression that objectivity is also required of a CPA.
Thank you URK for being a voice of reason.
PS - Real THINKERS of any stripe do not ever call for censorship.
Posted by: ch | January 5, 2011 10:59 AM
Report this Comment
I couldn't disagree more with pitbull, and I applaud the editors of this magazine for not indulging in censorship. It is not the function of journalists to forward an agenda. I may find StlH2O a bit on the hysterical side, but he has every right to voice his opinion, even if I don't particularly agree with it.
That, sir, is how a REAL conservative thinks. Real conservatives don't EVER call for censorship. Real conservatives welcome debate in open forums like this one and engage wrong thinking with measured reason in a civilized tenor. This is not a dogfight. The function of a debate in a democracy is not to beat the other guy down. The function of a debate is to convince the other guy that your ideas have merit. Debasing and belittling the people you disagree with, dismissing them as invalid and their ideas and beliefs as irrelevant is a piss-poor way to accomplish that.
Posted by: Urk | January 5, 2011 5:06 AM
Report this Comment
I was under the impression that becoming a CPA required a fundamental understanding of economics, budgeting, accounting and a fair bit of common sense.
Unfortunately, in reading this comment thread full of remarks illogical and ridiculous enough for the MSNBC, DailyKOS or Huffington Post web sites, I can see that is not necessarily the case. Far left kooks like Alan Grayson would be proud he has at least a few adherents in the accounting profession.
It's patently obvious there is no factual evidence to support the notion that the "sick will get sicker" without ObamaCare, the absurdity of "Repuglican's plan [to] kill off as many of the poor that they can, and work the rest as modern day slaves" nor that there is anything wrong with allowing those who earn their money to keep it (a phenomenon apparently known to some as "reckless tax cuts").
Unfortunately for this nation and the accounting profession, left wing lunacy seems to permeate the minds and overwhelm the intelligence of some like a cancer, festering with a searing hatred of individual freedom, Judeo-Christian religion, free market capitalism and wall-papered with visions of socialist dystopias.
Thus, I'd urge the general public to 'choose your accountant carefully' so as to avoid being victimized by some committed left-wing nutjob tax preparer who is determined to make some adjustments to your tax return to prevent you from benefitting unjustly from "reckless tax cuts." And for those who wish to boost their moral self-righteousness by paying their "fair share" as determined by the political far left, you can always do so by clicking on the following link:
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454
I'd urge the editors of Accounting Today to seriously consider the consequences of allowing this nonsense to continue. Toward that end, why not require comment threads on this site to remain unpoliticized and censor them accordingly, as necessary?
Posted by: Pitbullll | January 4, 2011 6:55 PM
Report this Comment
If the Obama healthcare plan is so good then why are many of those who supported him and the plan now getting exemptions from being included? The elected officials are sworn in by a constitutional oath to protect and uphold it. I think trying to make sure what they do is constitutional is a job requirement. If they can't or don't do it they should lose their job. Anytime a citizen is forced to buy something ( ie healthcare )whether they want it or not, or can afford it or not is where the government has crossed the line.
Posted by: CAPATRIOT | January 4, 2011 5:01 PM
Report this Comment
Until the next election - we will see more of the old adage - The rich get richer and the poor get poorer - and without healthcare - sicker and sicker. I guess that's the Repuglican's plan - kill off as many of the poor that they can, and work the rest as modern day slaves.
Posted by: StlH2O | January 4, 2011 12:16 PM
Report this Comment
THIS is the "new culture of fiscal discipline" we were promised? We're replacing reckless spending increases with reckless tax cuts? Really? Is that the way it's gonna be?
What really scares me, though, is the thought of a bunch of congressmen arguing about the Constitution. You might just as well ask a bunch of third graders to organize a school. All's good if you like chocolate milk and recess, but don't hold your breath for a lot of well educated graduates...
I approve of congressmen reading and understanding the Constitution, but I'm not comfortable with them doing any kind of formal and official interpretation of it. Frankly, that in and of itself is a gross violation of the Constitution. It infringes on the function of the supreme court and (unless they are planning to require them to become constitutional lawyers with thorough understandings of 200 years of supreme court precedents) can only hurt the delicate system of checks and balances detailed in the Constitution. It's a stupid idea. It's just not their job, and they don't have the education (or, IMHO, the attitude or aptitude) to do it competently.
Posted by: Urk | January 4, 2011 12:10 PM
Report this Comment
Maybe they're throwing those who need health care under the bus, but at least the bus will have a nice smooth road. One that we all will pay for over and over and over. I may not like toll roads, but I like roads-to-nowhere even less.
Posted by: BPMguy | January 4, 2011 10:40 AM
Report this Comment
Why would anyone think that "constitional authority" is important? I thought we threw that out last century. Aren't we living in the age of anything-goes? (as long as you were elected/appointed to public office)
Posted by: JoeSC | January 4, 2011 9:43 AM
Report this Comment
Add Your Comments...
Already Registered?
If you have already registered to Accounting Today, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immeditely be directed to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment.